# How many rounds to finish a game?

• What is your average game length (by round but feel free to include time as well if you wish)?

Give me the shortest game you’ve played (by round), longest game you’ve played (by round), and what you’d say the average game takes.

We played two so far:

First) 14 hours (Saturday and Sunday) 6 rounds
Second) 7 hours (Saturday) 4 Rounds

So it looks like we got a little quicker our second game. Lol. Our third game is tomorrow which is why I ask. We are going to try out younggrasshoppers block strategy for timing reasons.

• If the AXIS WIN: 6 or 7 turns to kill Moscow with a BIG German army. Allies give up.

If the ALLIES survive the first 7 turns with no better result than a German pyrrhic victory over one of either the UK or Russia (for example loosing a lot of aircraft and taking Moscow with only a small force): 12 to 20 turns with a likely Allied win. Maybe a little sooner if one side or the other surrenders.

Our last ‘short game’ lasted 10 hours (excluding another 2 hours of break time).

As for the game time (not turns): we tend to analyse some attacks before making a move. For example, if Germany has ~90 units next to Moscow and the Russians/UK have ~100 units there, Germany enters all the units into the battle calculator to see the odds before he decides if the assault will take place or it is wiser to do ‘something else for the time being’.

Battle calculator analyses, unfortunately, take some time… Not paralysing the game but definately extending it.

Curious what Major Power you will play this time and if your allied team can stop the Axis (Always exponentially harder for a team than for a single person playing all the allies)…

• For a VC win, it usually takes Axis 10+ turns to win.  But the allies normally concede before that.  If the axis are not gaining much ground by round 10, then it is likely that the allies will win.

• In our games, Axis wins usually take 8-10 rounds, Allied wins usually about 12-15 rounds.
We tend to play out games to the bitter end, but sometimes one side or the other will go ahead and surrender when it gets fairly obvious they won’t be able to turn it around.
As for the Axis wins, the 8-10 rounds is usually the Victory City win. Occasionally, just for kicks, we will play out until the Axis totally rules the world and those games will take much longer, as long as 20 rounds if the US decides to turtle.
As far as time goes, we will usually play on the weekend and the first day is usually taken up with setup and the first 2 rounds. The second day we will make better progress, around 5 or 6 rounds. We play at a rather leisurely pace. Some weekends we just don’t get a game finished so we will pick it up the next weekend. Luckily, I have a room in my house where I can leave the game setup over the work week.

• Thanks for the answers so far guys.

I really like you guys and respect the very educated opinions I have read on here so far. That’s why I wish to share some news with you and hope a moderator doesn’t yell at me for doing so as this comment relates to 1942 second edition (we switch between that and global depending on how many people we have).

4 of us played last night 1942 Second Edition and saw a rare (rare for our group) Allies win. I was UK, my buddy was USA and we split Russia. We beat our other friend who was Germany and my Uncle was Japan.

Round 8 we had Germany completely surrounded and ended the turn with the requisite 9 Victory Cities. FIRST game we saw “officially” end the proper was without someone conceding.

Just thought you guys would be interested since it’s so rare to see a “TRUE” victory in one evening. We started at 7:00pm and finished at 1:30am. And I had to be in court this morning…Lol. (Don’t worry, I’m not a criminal, I represent them! haha)

• Just thought you guys would be interested since it’s so rare to see a “TRUE” victory in one evening. We started at 7:00pm and finished at 1:30am. And I had to be in court this morning…Lol. (Don’t worry, I’m not a criminal, I represent them! haha)

1942 and Global 1940 are two very different games.  It’s not rare to see a true victory in one evening playing 1942.  My games usually take 2-4 hours.

• IKE - You are right, they are very different. We played Global yesterday. We saw an allied Victory beginning of Round 4. After Russia (2nd player to go in round 4) decimated a stack of 13 German tanks on a counter-offensive, the Allies ceded victory.

• I  have been learning to play 40 Global with a friend that has been playing for nearly ten years.  He has played with a number of groups and I like that I have had the opportunity to learn this way.  We just finished a game that started with five players and ended up with just the two of us.  I was the Allies and Larrie was the axis.  We had twenty-five to thirty rounds.  I wasn’t exactly sure by this point.  The Soviets held out to round twenty-two.  I left an avenue for the Germans to blitz between two stacks of infantry and attack Moscow with tanks and aircraft.  There were enough Soviet troops to retake Leningrad and hold the Germans from moving out of Moscow after this.  The US and UK had liberated western Europe.  Italy was surrounded and the allies controlled the middle east, Africa , and the Balkans.  Japan was in the hands of the ANZACs.  My friend wanted to play it to the bitter end but it finally ended because the others that we play with wanted to start another game.  This was not a game filled with mistakes and bad play but two guys that kept generaling in such away as to find the opening that would finally lead to the victory.  I had a blast to have the padawaun learner defeat the master.

• As for the game time (not turns): we tend to analyse some attacks before making a move. For example, if Germany has ~90 units next to Moscow and the Russians/UK have ~100 units there, Germany enters all the units into the battle calculator to see the odds before he decides if the assault will take place or it is wiser to do ‘something else for the time being’.

Battle calculator analyses, unfortunately, take some time… Not paralysing the game but definately extending it.

You guys use battle calc extensively when playing tabletop? In our play group there’s one guy who usually brings it out for a big battle like what you listed and sometimes other people will ask him to run BC for them, but most of us don’t play with it. I will use it quite a bit on triplea since it’s built right into it and most other opponents I’ll face online will use it as well. I’ve never used it at the table though as I think it’s a crutch and detracts from the fun of the game if you calc at the table like you would online.

• As for the game time (not turns): we tend to analyse some attacks before making a move. For example, if Germany has ~90 units next to Moscow and the Russians/UK have ~100 units there, Germany enters all the units into the battle calculator to see the odds before he decides if the assault will take place or it is wiser to do ‘something else for the time being’.

Battle calculator analyses, unfortunately, take some time… Not paralysing the game but definately extending it.

You guys use battle calc extensively when playing tabletop? In our play group there’s one guy who usually brings it out for a big battle like what you listed and sometimes other people will ask him to run BC for them, but most of us don’t play with it. I will use it quite a bit on triplea since it’s built right into it and most other opponents I’ll face online will use it as well. I’ve never used it at the table though as I think it’s a crutch and detracts from the fun of the game if you calc at the table like you would online.

Some of us here at home started to use it after realizing some battles or defenses simply should not be started intuitively. With the introduction of the allied strategy of preserving their armies before they start to counterattack, more and more of our group came to rely on it. Simply because the person who attacks (or defends) a position without knowing what the odds are (whilst his/her opponent does) will loose that important position and most likely, the game. So we use it a lot at home.

Some great examples:

• Moscow. Imagine both Russia and Germany have stacked 100-200 units there opposing each other. The forces are so huge that it is impossible (to me at least) to know what the odds are… Using the calculator has brought numerous victories and not using it numerous losses. A recent Axis victory for example, was because the Italian player entered all units of a possible battle for Moscow in the calculator and showed the odds to the German player who didn’t want to attack at first. After seeing the odds -GE should win with 30+ units- he attacked and indeed won with 36 survivors. On the other hand I’ve seen an overeager Germany attacking Moscow without calculating first. His Russian opponent did and knew Germany had 100% chance of loosing that battle leaving ~20 Russian survivors. I’ve never been in Berlin as fast as that day!

• USN versus the IJN. I see it happen a lot: the people who do not use a battle calculator or use a scrap of paper (the old way) to do their own calculations on, always defend/attack the wrong seazone thinking they are strong enough which they are not, loosing the naval battle and the war in the Pacific.

• Allied invasions and further pushes inland in Western Europe. In my personal experience, those invasions can turn into a disaster for the allies if not done at the exact right time with the right amount of units. Hard to plan without a calculator if both sides have ~30units (increasing rapidly) involved. of course, if one side is clearly stronger than the other there is no need of a BC, but I assume your opponents know better than to have this front too clearly undermanned ;-).

• Ha! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard something along the lines of ‘F*#@ it, I’m going for it!’ in my playgroup.  :lol:

We roughly count things out by totaling units and their punch. Most of us have a pretty good grasp of what the odds are going in. We might not always know what the actual percentage is or how many units we might expect to come out of it. But we can get it in the ballpark and that’s close enough for us.

Besides the game’s about having fun and enjoying yourself. I might calc things out if it were a tournament game or something like that. But a game among friends on a Saturday afternoon/evening with some pizza and beer isn’t something you approach like it was a math problem.

• So you guys that use this battle calculator, I assume this is a program on your computer, right? So my question is; Do you keep a computer next to your game table? Or perhaps you use a laptop.
I guess we do it old school. Basically, if I’m attacking and I have more total units than the defender, it depends on how big the forces are and how much more I have. If it’s really big forces on both sides and I only have 4 or 5 more units, I will hold off and build up some more.
For example, say Germany is ready to attack Moscow. Moscow has built up a defense of 50 total units (including AA guns since they can take hits). Germany had a total attack force of 63 units. This would include ALL land units that can reach Moscow (those right on the border plus any new tanks/mechs built in Ukraine and/or Stalingrad last round) plus any aircraft that can reach.
In this case, I would attack. While it’s true I only have 13 more units than Russia, roughly half of my force would be tanks and planes which I consider “heavy hitters” while the vast majority of Russian units will be infantry which only hit on 2. Now, I only use dice battles, NO Low Luck, and even one crappy roll for me or one spectacular roll for Russia could doom the attack. However, on the average I think I would have good enough odds to win with at least 13 or more units left alive.
Now, if Russia had his 50 units for defense and Germany only had 59 or less, I would probably wait at least another round and build up some more. Anything less than a 10 unit advantage with forces this size and those dice can be just tricky enough to screw you.

• Ha! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard something along the lines of ‘F*#@ it, I’m going for it!’ in my playgroup. Â :lol:

We roughly count things out by totaling units and their punch. Most of us have a pretty good grasp of what the odds are going in. We might not always know what the actual percentage is or how many units we might expect to come out of it. But we can get it in the ballpark and that’s close enough for us.

Besides the game’s about having fun and enjoying yourself. I might calc things out if it were a tournament game or something like that. But a game among friends on a Saturday afternoon/evening with some pizza and beer isn’t something you approach like it was a math problem.

You make a good point, sir! I have to admit I/we use the BC maybe a little too much. Approach the game like it was a math problem :-D. But in all honesty, we feel like we are forced to do so because many situations are not as clear as we’d like by roughly counting things out. Maybe we are simply not that smart in mathematics or maybe our playstyle complicates things. I’d sure love to know how to have the allies win the game without massing huge stacks that are impossible to attack/defend against without some sort of calculation!
And since a BC takes roughly as much time as even the simplest counting out, I’d use it any time!

• So you guys that use this battle calculator, I assume this is a program on your computer, right? So my question is; Do you keep a computer next to your game table? Or perhaps you use a laptop.
I guess we do it old school. Basically, if I’m attacking and I have more total units than the defender, it depends on how big the forces are and how much more I have. If it’s really big forces on both sides and I only have 4 or 5 more units, I will hold off and build up some more.
For example, say Germany is ready to attack Moscow. Moscow has built up a defense of 50 total units (including AA guns since they can take hits). Germany had a total attack force of 63 units. This would include ALL land units that can reach Moscow (those right on the border plus any new tanks/mechs built in Ukraine and/or Stalingrad last round) plus any aircraft that can reach.
In this case, I would attack. While it’s true I only have 13 more units than Russia, roughly half of my force would be tanks and planes which I consider “heavy hitters” while the vast majority of Russian units will be infantry which only hit on 2. Now, I only use dice battles, NO Low Luck, and even one crappy roll for me or one spectacular roll for Russia could doom the attack. However, on the average I think I would have good enough odds to win with at least 13 or more units left alive.
Now, if Russia had his 50 units for defense and Germany only had 59 or less, I would probably wait at least another round and build up some more. Anything less than a 10 unit advantage with forces this size and those dice can be just tricky enough to screw you.

Yes, I have a computer close by and some of my friends have a laptop for it.

I’d like to add that if playing very casually or with people with a certain… wasteful playstyle (throwing their armies at you every turn in the hope you will eventually go down), no calculator is needed. Usually the armies should remain small enough to make a decent estimation of an upcoming battle.

The examples you posted are very clear. I’d not use a BC in those situations too. Now consider a more unclear situation, where Russia has 100units in Moscow and Germany has 95units to attack with. This can be a huge victory for Germany (winning with ~25 units) but only if it has enough combat factors. And… what is enough ;-). I have yet to meet the person who can tell me that, so untill then I’keep using a BC for those situations.

• I would think using a BC along with a timed turn or whatever would seem to be the best of both worlds.  So you’d still have the option, but it couldn’t completely drain the game’s momentum.

• The friend who calcs in the playgroup uses this BC

http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html

He’s got that app on his phone so he always has the BC within reach.  :roll:

And LeCrerc, maybe my group doesn’t use it enough. And I’m fine with that because in the past two years I’ve only lost 2 games playing in our group. So I’m fine with things staying the same!

Not that there aren’t strong players in our group. We typically only game from noon to whenever and most people are gone/leaving around 8pm with a couple of us diehards/unmarried folk staying later. So everyone is a little more prone to press things to get resolution before they or their opponent needs to jet.

• . I’ve never used it at the table though as I think it’s a crutch and detracts from the fun of the game if you calc at the table like you would online.

I totally agree, man. To put the computer in the driving seat takes away the fun. Besides, the game will take forever. Like in chess, one need to make a big mistake for the other to win. Tournament play online is ugly. If you want a game of A&A to be a real challenge like mountain climbing, racing cars or bull fighting, then ditch your BC and let your gut feeling do the decisions, the way the generals do it in the real wars. You didn’t see Patton or Rommel running the numbers before they attacked, now did you ?

• What is your average game length (by round but feel free to include time as well if you wish)?

Give me the shortest game you’ve played (by round), longest game you’ve played (by round), and what you’d say the average game takes.

We played two so far:

First) 14 hours (Saturday and Sunday) 6 rounds
Second) 7 hours (Saturday) 4 Rounds

So it looks like we got a little quicker our second game. Lol. Our third game is tomorrow which is why I ask. We are going to try out younggrasshoppers block strategy for timing reasons.

I say the first turn take the longest time, since the big players Germany and Japan need to do a lot of figuring and decisions. Experience and favorite openings will speed up the pace. After turn 3 a turn should not take more than one hour. 2 dedicated players play faster than 6 casual players. To the Axis speed is everything, and if you don’t get Moscow and India before turn 8, the Allies will win in the long run. And remember the only losers are the quitters, so if you cant commit the whole weekend, then this game is not for you. Then try A&A 1942, now that’s a quick game, man

• . I’ve never used it at the table though as I think it’s a crutch and detracts from the fun of the game if you calc at the table like you would online.

I totally agree, man. To put the computer in the driving seat takes away the fun. Besides, the game will take forever. Like in chess, one need to make a big mistake for the other to win. Tournament play online is ugly. If you want a game of A&A to be a real challenge like mountain climbing, racing cars or bull fighting, then ditch your BC and let your gut feeling do the decisions, the way the generals do it in the real wars. You didn’t see Patton or Rommel running the numbers before they attacked, now did you ?

Uhuu, narvik now there’s things I really have to disagree on hehheh!

First, the computer is never in our driver’s seat. It s not even telling me where to go like a route planner. It is only telling us the exact strength of the enemy where we can base our decisions on. Knowledge is Power, so to say. Computers are merely the mathmatical equipment of the modern age (or they should be).

Second, I indeed like the way real good Generals do it.
Sun Tzu, for example, said (and wrote) that: “The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.”
Remember that famous picture of Erwin Rommel in his tent in the desert? Using his drafting compass, a ruler and other mathematical equipment? You know Rommel probably had a very strong (reliable) ‘gut feeling’, but he is surely known for making a plan and calculating it out into the finest details.
There are even detailed drawings of battleplans from him if you search the internet good enough. So he draws out a battle before that battle takes place as a real ‘Sun Tzuian’.

I DO agree with you on your opinion about chess. And I try NOT to be the first one in a game of chess (or A&A) to make the big mistake for the other to win. Using my brains only in chess, but in A&A, using the modern equivalent of mathematical equipment like a real general would ;-).

• While there are some good similarities between the planning a general like Rommel did and what we do, it’s still analogous to apples and oranges.

Unlike Rommel, we know everything the enemy does. We know how much money he has in the bank, how many units he has in each terr, and also his ability to reinforce or sustain a fight. Even a modern day general with all the intel tools available to him is still not going to have as complete of knowledge as we do every time we play A&A.Intel is one of the biggest and sometimes underrated aspect of war and we have it handed it to us on a silver platter every time we gather around the board.

He DID make the best plans he could before a battle based on the information he knew about his forces and also on what he THOUGHT he knew about the enemy. But I doubt he ever calced out how many men he could expect to be left with after a major battle. Besides I believe another famous general said that no plan survived contact with the enemy.

• He DID make the best plans he could before a battle based on the information he knew about his forces and also on what he THOUGHT he knew about the enemy.

Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy, they told us that only amateurs talk tactics, real officers talk supply. And would a skilled general disobey orders twice ? Arras was ugly, because the Brits could have cut him off, and he was saved only by luck. North Africa is where he failed. He got orders to protect western Libya, and supply enough to that job, not for a personal ego drive trough the Middle East and into India. Lucky to him, AH was an amateur. Now if I had done something like that, they would hang me for sure. A soldiers first job is to follow orders

• While there are some good similarities between the planning a general like Rommel did and what we do, it’s still analogous to apples and oranges.Â

Unlike Rommel, we know everything the enemy does. We know how much money he has in the bank, how many units he has in each terr, and also his ability to reinforce or sustain a fight. Even a modern day general with all the intel tools available to him is still not going to have as complete of knowledge as we do every time we play A&A.Intel is one of the biggest and sometimes underrated aspect of war and we have it handed it to us on a silver platter every time we gather around the board.

He DID make the best plans he could before a battle based on the information he knew about his forces and also on what he THOUGHT he knew about the enemy. But I doubt he ever calced out how many men he could expect to be left with after a major battle. Besides I believe another famous general said that no plan survived contact with the enemy.Â

Hehheh, I like this!
It is true of course. Well, let’s just say the similarities between the apples and the oranges are that they are both trying to be good fruits ;-).
Like in a real war, the similarity is that we should use any and all information available to us. A good, open minded general should not refuse information available to him/her that can be used to his/her benefit.

Compared to the real war, us guys would ofc be attacking Moscow largely unaware of what’s opposing us. Then again, such RL battles aren’t as unforgiving as in an A&A game. In the real war, battles are much more dynamic and a general would notice a drastically increasing resistance, possibly altering his plans to avoid total defeat.

I agree that Rommel probably would not have calced out exactly with how much men he should win a battle but he should at least have made an educated guess. Considering the plans he had for the regio, he must either have been delusional, badly misinformed (importance of good intel!) or simply hopelessly outnumbered because certain promised reinforcements couldn’t arrive.

About that plans that don’t survive first contact… I thought even Rommel himself Â quoted this, but correct me if I am wrong!

He DID make the best plans he could before a battle based on the information he knew about his forces and also on what he THOUGHT he knew about the enemy.

Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy, they told us that only amateurs talk tactics, real officers talk supply. And would a skilled general disobey orders twice ? Arras was ugly, because the Brits could have cut him off, and he was saved only by luck. North Africa is where he failed. He got orders to protect western Libya, and supply enough to that job, not for a personal ego drive trough the Middle East and into India. Lucky to him, AH was an amateur. Now if I had done something like that, they would hang me for sure. A soldiers first job is to follow orders

Hmmm, tactics for amateurs? I find it very short-sighted of them ;-). Be open minded! Everyone should understand the importance of BOTH tactics and supplies. Neither of them means much without the other. Example: the opening year of WW2. France had a much stronger army and supply than Germany and yet they failed miserably against the German Blitzkrieg. The Allies had to improve their tactical doctrines in order to defeat the Axis, not their supplies, of which they had more than enough.

Well, if we are to believe what Rommel’s direct opponents and the people around him said about him, he was an inspiring and brilliant commander. His men loved him and so did AH because of his successes. As I understand it, he suffered from changeable moods, ranging from enthousiastic to depression. Furthermore, he had his limits. He was a genius on corps-level but not so good at commanding above that level (Army/Army Group etc.).
So I think it is safe to say that Generals can disobey orders as long as they are successfull and defeating enemy armies above all expectations. If your superiors would hang you for the exact same things Rommel did in Africa during WW2, they would be very ignorant to opportunities and, I suspect, would only hang you because of fear you would surpass them in fame and rank…

And as far as his supply problems go, the brits did sink a LOT of supply convoys in the med and as said, Rommel was a Brilliant corps commander but he probably failed at judging the allied naval strength. After all he was no admiral so it’s kinda understandable as well.

• Then again, such RL battles aren’t as unforgiving as in an A&A game.

Tell that to the poor souls who were in these battles!

About that plans that don’t survive first contact… I thought even Rommel himself � quoted this, but correct me if I am wrong!

I’m not sure if you’re saying he said this or are attributing the quote to him. Helmuth von Moltke was the one who is attributed for this quote. However many famous generals and not so famous armchair generals have used this quote since.

Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy

I love the little inclusion about how you went to a military academy. Anyway, I wasn’t meaning to get into an argument about Rommel’s generalship or lack or of it as the case may be. LeClerc brought up Rommel and I was just using him as an example. No general or admiral ever really knew exactly what he was facing. They didn’t have the ability to whip out a battle calc to check the IPC swing before deciding whether to commit their forces.

• Then again, such RL battles aren’t as unforgiving as in an A&A game.

Tell that to the poor souls who were in these battles!
>>Luckily, I don’t have to!
Have you seen “The Messenger” with Woody Harrelson? Good movie about telling the bad news to the poor souls that are left behind, if you can appreciate a tragicomical drama.

About that plans that don’t survive first contact… I thought even Rommel himself quoted this, but correct me if I am wrong!

I’m not sure if you’re saying he said this or are attributing the quote to him. Helmuth von Moltke was the one who is attributed for this quote. However many famous generals and not so famous armchair generals have used this quote since.
>> I meant he just said it by quoting the person who said it first Â :lol:.

Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy

I love the little inclusion about how you went to a military academy. Anyway, I wasn’t meaning to get into an argument about Rommel’s generalship or lack or of it as the case may be. LeClerc brought up Rommel and I was just using him as an example. No general or admiral ever really knew exactly what he was facing. They didn’t have the ability to whip out a battle calc to check the IPC swing before deciding whether to commit their forces.
>> I didn’t bring the good man up ;-). I reacted to the remark that “Rommel & Patton wouldn’t run the numbers before a battle” since I do remember this picture of Rommel, sitting in his tent in the desert with all his mathematical equipment, making calculations and drawing battleplans up into the minuscule details.

Even during the ancient time, a good general knew the size and strengths of what he was facing. Not exactly of course but accurate enough. From the ancient time all the way into the modern age, commanders who knew more about the enemy than they knew about him, won the most (not necessarily all!) battles. Why else would Sun Tzu say things such as “he who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious” and “The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.”? And the list goes on. He is referring to fighting of armies and no general can make ‘calculations’ or ‘know when to fight and when not’ if he doesn’t know what he is facing. Scouting is a very important aspect of warfare (and has Always been), particularly aimed at enabling the commander(s) to make calculations, and, knowing when to fight and when not to.

I am saying that using a BC in A&A will dramatically strengthen your ability to make the right decision(s). The parallel with a real war commander using ‘his version of a BC’ is merely a metaphor and should not be taken too seriously as far as I am concerned.
Looking at this picture of Rommel in his tent, I find the metaphor not too far fetched but it is of course only about the vicissitudes of local army commander, apart from drawing an image of what a man can do with the right tools.

• Lets just agree that the world have seen a lot of poor generals, and that real life calculations of weather forecast, terrain, supply chains, morale, fighting spirit, surprise, Medevac, taking prisoners etc cant be compared to the luck of rolling dice. In real life you calculate you need 3 to 1 in firepower for a successful attack, with modifiers for terrain and flank protection, and if your initial attack run bad with too high casualty rate, you just abort. In a huge inf stack A&A battle you are pretty much stuck to the dice rolls. The defender cant even retreat.

To wrap this up, I guess its ok to use a BC when playing online tournaments and you really want to win, and time is not an issue. But I say, when you sit in your basement with 4 beer drinking friends, and you got less than 10 hours to spend, its pretty bad taste to spend half the time doing computer calculations. And with bad dice luck on the first round, you will have to do a new half hour calculations just to decide to retreat or stay in battle. Now that is what I call a nice buddy

2

6

9

14

3

36

6

3